A 757 Did Hit The Pentagon
09-03-2005, 04:02 AM
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: redondo beach
Posts: 983
[quote name='RotorDemon' date='Sep 3 2005, 12:28 AM']http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.swf
I like this one.
[/quote]
PLEASE tell me you dont actually believe that. all that the video was based off of was the security camera (on the page i listed it shows how a 757 fits perfectly into the space that on your vid they say one cant fit in) and the fact that no parts of the plane were found (if you look on the link i gave it shows that there were pieces that were found, like TWO engines, and also if you look at the videos i posted of a plane hitting the concrete wall youll notice that that entire plane is disintigrated, you see VERY few parts of that plane fly past the wall, or ANY anywhere near it) and finally on eyewitness accounts which call it a missle, but on the link i posted theres more than what the video had that call it a plane.
so explain this: (since you obviously didnt even read or look at the pictures AT ALL in the link i posted if you still believe that link)
Area of fence to the right of the impact area partially flattened by the right engine of the plane. Note how a couple of the poles are bent right over, some are sheered off at the top, yet the pole and fence portion on the left is untouched (obviously the right engine took out the fence to the right of those poles) and the entire back side of the fence has been torn away. The generator was hit by the right wing and engine before the 757 hit the building - the damage is evidenced by other photos of the crash area.
Closeup of generator smashed in the front and gouged on the top - hard to image a missile accomplishing both of these. But if the right engine of a 757 hit the front of the generator, part of the wing could gouge the top. At the very least, something very large, and very heavy smashed into this extremely heavy desil generator.
Click the image on the left to view a large top-down image of the impact area, including the large desil generator which is visibly damaged, and actually spun ~45 degrees from the impact! Most importantly it is spun ~45 degrees towards the building - if this was a missile or a bomb, the explosion could ONLY have spun it away from the building.
The Gate Camera
Some people don't seem to see perspective correctly. I've zoomed in, and compared the two frames over and over - here is what I see as the airplane. I will repeat, however, that this is terrible evidence due to the horrible quality of the original images. I do believe, however, that the white smoke in the images is caused by one or more damaged engine from the impact with the multiple light poles on the way in (as seen in the above image).
I like this one.
[snapback]754799[/snapback]
[/quote]
PLEASE tell me you dont actually believe that. all that the video was based off of was the security camera (on the page i listed it shows how a 757 fits perfectly into the space that on your vid they say one cant fit in) and the fact that no parts of the plane were found (if you look on the link i gave it shows that there were pieces that were found, like TWO engines, and also if you look at the videos i posted of a plane hitting the concrete wall youll notice that that entire plane is disintigrated, you see VERY few parts of that plane fly past the wall, or ANY anywhere near it) and finally on eyewitness accounts which call it a missle, but on the link i posted theres more than what the video had that call it a plane.
so explain this: (since you obviously didnt even read or look at the pictures AT ALL in the link i posted if you still believe that link)
Area of fence to the right of the impact area partially flattened by the right engine of the plane. Note how a couple of the poles are bent right over, some are sheered off at the top, yet the pole and fence portion on the left is untouched (obviously the right engine took out the fence to the right of those poles) and the entire back side of the fence has been torn away. The generator was hit by the right wing and engine before the 757 hit the building - the damage is evidenced by other photos of the crash area.
Closeup of generator smashed in the front and gouged on the top - hard to image a missile accomplishing both of these. But if the right engine of a 757 hit the front of the generator, part of the wing could gouge the top. At the very least, something very large, and very heavy smashed into this extremely heavy desil generator.
Click the image on the left to view a large top-down image of the impact area, including the large desil generator which is visibly damaged, and actually spun ~45 degrees from the impact! Most importantly it is spun ~45 degrees towards the building - if this was a missile or a bomb, the explosion could ONLY have spun it away from the building.
The Gate Camera
Some people don't seem to see perspective correctly. I've zoomed in, and compared the two frames over and over - here is what I see as the airplane. I will repeat, however, that this is terrible evidence due to the horrible quality of the original images. I do believe, however, that the white smoke in the images is caused by one or more damaged engine from the impact with the multiple light poles on the way in (as seen in the above image).
09-03-2005, 04:18 AM
#12
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 31
Take a look for one at the front of the engine in the picture. then take a look at a REAL 757 turbine.
Sorry... didn't know a passenger airliner has engines that are a MASSIVE 2 feet in diameter.
Plus the "smoke trail" from the damaged engine should have stayed in many more frames. This indicates its not a trail and the video/flash/gif was tampered.
That will be all.
Sorry... didn't know a passenger airliner has engines that are a MASSIVE 2 feet in diameter.
Plus the "smoke trail" from the damaged engine should have stayed in many more frames. This indicates its not a trail and the video/flash/gif was tampered.
That will be all.
09-03-2005, 04:35 AM
#13
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: redondo beach
Posts: 983
[quote name='RotorDemon' date='Sep 3 2005, 01:18 AM']Take a look for one at the front of the engine in the picture. then take a look at a REAL 757 turbine.
Sorry... didn't know a passenger airliner has engines that are a MASSIVE 2 feet in diameter.
Plus the "smoke trail" from the damaged engine should have stayed in many more frames. This indicates its not a trail and the video/flash/gif was tampered.
That will be all.
[/quote]
What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common on modern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used to furnish ground auxillary power while the main engines are shut down during ground operations. An online training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a 757/767 instrument pannel.
There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above �It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I�m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.� (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.) The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military�s unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman�s subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999. A detailed view of what the turbofan that powers the Global Hawk looks like - I'm sure you can see it's too small to be anything in the pictures contained here or anywhere else in the Pentagon crash evidence. Also visible in this photo, one of the 757's blue passenger seats to the left of the turbine, and possibly a 2nd seat above the other seat.
find a .gif that has a longer trail than that one. you CANT because thats how it actually looked.
ANYWAYS you still havent refuted any of the points that have been brought up on my side, only to try and take away the credibility of a fewof the points ive brought up (and have been successfully countered on my part, thanks to the link i gave earlier) read through a couple pages of the link i posted and youll realize that what youve been fed is total bullshit.
If you plan on trying to take anything away from my argument answer these questions before replying:
1. what happened to the generator that was turned towards the pentagon?
2. what hit the pentagon if it wasnt a plane?
3. where did the parts of the plane come from?
4. why does the origional size of the hole match the size of a 757 nose?
5. why were heavily damaged wheels that are confirmed to be installed on a 757 found inside the building?
6. why do the engine parts photographed inside the crash site match engine parts match a Rolls-Royce RB211 (the same type of engine that was on the 757)
7. why do structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes?
8. why were 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage?
and since you have NOTHING to refute these points you obviously have no argument against it being a 757.
Sorry... didn't know a passenger airliner has engines that are a MASSIVE 2 feet in diameter.
Plus the "smoke trail" from the damaged engine should have stayed in many more frames. This indicates its not a trail and the video/flash/gif was tampered.
That will be all.
[snapback]754802[/snapback]
[/quote]
What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common on modern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used to furnish ground auxillary power while the main engines are shut down during ground operations. An online training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a 757/767 instrument pannel.
There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above �It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I�m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.� (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.) The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military�s unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman�s subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999. A detailed view of what the turbofan that powers the Global Hawk looks like - I'm sure you can see it's too small to be anything in the pictures contained here or anywhere else in the Pentagon crash evidence. Also visible in this photo, one of the 757's blue passenger seats to the left of the turbine, and possibly a 2nd seat above the other seat.
find a .gif that has a longer trail than that one. you CANT because thats how it actually looked.
ANYWAYS you still havent refuted any of the points that have been brought up on my side, only to try and take away the credibility of a fewof the points ive brought up (and have been successfully countered on my part, thanks to the link i gave earlier) read through a couple pages of the link i posted and youll realize that what youve been fed is total bullshit.
If you plan on trying to take anything away from my argument answer these questions before replying:
1. what happened to the generator that was turned towards the pentagon?
2. what hit the pentagon if it wasnt a plane?
3. where did the parts of the plane come from?
4. why does the origional size of the hole match the size of a 757 nose?
5. why were heavily damaged wheels that are confirmed to be installed on a 757 found inside the building?
6. why do the engine parts photographed inside the crash site match engine parts match a Rolls-Royce RB211 (the same type of engine that was on the 757)
7. why do structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes?
8. why were 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage?
and since you have NOTHING to refute these points you obviously have no argument against it being a 757.
09-03-2005, 05:14 AM
#14
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 31
[quote name='Eric Happy Meal' date='Sep 3 2005, 02:35 AM']
find a .gif that has a longer trail than that one. you CANT because thats how it actually looked.
That proves no point and yes.. there is not a video in existance with more frames from that camera.
If you plan on trying to take anything away from my argument answer these questions before replying:
1. what happened to the generator that was turned towards the pentagon?
Infact, engineers from Honeywell HAVE come forward to say IT ISN'T an APU, an that IT ISN'T FROM A 757 AT ALL.
2. what hit the pentagon if it wasnt a plane?
You can't even answer that one
3. where did the parts of the plane come from?
From a plane
4. why does the origional size of the hole match the size of a 757 nose?
It doesn't
5. why were heavily damaged wheels that are confirmed to be installed on a 757 found inside the building?
Wheres this "confirmation"?
6. why do the engine parts photographed inside the crash site match engine parts match a Rolls-Royce RB211 (the same type of engine that was on the 757)
You are pulling that right out of your ***
7. why do structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes?
Again, no confirmation. That inhibitor is used widely in many aircraft, civilian, military, etc. Boeing, Douglas, Lockheed, General Dynamics.. etc.
8. why were 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage?
No bodies/luggage/Black Box were recovered blamed on "intense heat from fuel"
and since you have NOTHING to refute these points you obviously have no argument against it being a 757.
[/quote]
find a .gif that has a longer trail than that one. you CANT because thats how it actually looked.
That proves no point and yes.. there is not a video in existance with more frames from that camera.
If you plan on trying to take anything away from my argument answer these questions before replying:
1. what happened to the generator that was turned towards the pentagon?
Infact, engineers from Honeywell HAVE come forward to say IT ISN'T an APU, an that IT ISN'T FROM A 757 AT ALL.
2. what hit the pentagon if it wasnt a plane?
You can't even answer that one
3. where did the parts of the plane come from?
From a plane
4. why does the origional size of the hole match the size of a 757 nose?
It doesn't
5. why were heavily damaged wheels that are confirmed to be installed on a 757 found inside the building?
Wheres this "confirmation"?
6. why do the engine parts photographed inside the crash site match engine parts match a Rolls-Royce RB211 (the same type of engine that was on the 757)
You are pulling that right out of your ***
7. why do structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes?
Again, no confirmation. That inhibitor is used widely in many aircraft, civilian, military, etc. Boeing, Douglas, Lockheed, General Dynamics.. etc.
8. why were 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage?
No bodies/luggage/Black Box were recovered blamed on "intense heat from fuel"
and since you have NOTHING to refute these points you obviously have no argument against it being a 757.
[snapback]754803[/snapback]
[/quote]
09-03-2005, 05:22 AM
#15
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 31
Wait hold on.. I got a quick question for you Eric.
Ok.. so heres this hole in the Pentagon thats burning. They say from fuel.
Infact the 757 has two tanks about "ABOUT" 90 feet apart on the wings.
Why isn't it a blazing inferno on either side of the hole?
Ok.. so heres this hole in the Pentagon thats burning. They say from fuel.
Infact the 757 has two tanks about "ABOUT" 90 feet apart on the wings.
Why isn't it a blazing inferno on either side of the hole?
09-03-2005, 08:57 AM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Delaware
Posts: 682
haha... this is just bs
despite all these arguments, don't you think someone would have seen a ****** 757 hit it??? Also, those planes are flippin huge ! there's no way they would try to cover something like that up
despite all these arguments, don't you think someone would have seen a ****** 757 hit it??? Also, those planes are flippin huge ! there's no way they would try to cover something like that up